It's freezing,Russia stops gas to Ukraine, Europe could run low.Are you still against Fracking?

[Lowbankclaret]

Wind being to strong for the turbines is because they haven’t designed them correctly.
Frustrates the hell out off me as it can be done.

[Paul Waine]

Paul Waine isn't a troll.

I meant Rowls

Thanks, guys.

I doubt Rowls is a "troll" either. Just someone else with views to express and share.

I like it when we keep it nice and respectful.

[Imploding Turtle]

Thanks, guys.

I doubt Rowls is a "troll" either. Just someone else with views to express and share.

I like it when we keep it nice and respectful.

I have no respect for someone like Rowls who can be shown to be absolutely wrong and yet remain convinced he's right.

[Paul Waine]

Wind being to strong for the turbines is because they haven’t designed them correctly.
Frustrates the hell out off me as it can be done.

Hi Lowbanks, are you sure? The wind turbine manufactures have been working on these things for many years. Are they really failing to get the best out of their designs?

Be great, of course, if there is scope for improvement in this area.

[Paul Waine]

And by the way, it is so full of mistakes it's ******* laughable. He calculates the capital+fixed and capital+variable costs seperately for CCCT and wind, but then only uses Capital+fixed to reach his conclusions. He's completely ignored the variable costs of gas (which inclused the bloody fuel).

On what planet does that become "well-argued statistical analysis"? Be honest, you understood none of it.

Hi IT, looking at capex+fixed costs is one of the things the BEIS report does as part of it's analysis of the viability for "capacity back-up" generation. It is valid to look at the "cost to build" alone, if the assumption is that it won't be operating frequently.

Of course, in a "full life cycle" cost comparison all variable costs also need to be considered.

[Paul Waine]

I'm still not seeing why you would think that the UK government levying a lower rate of PRT on "smaller/or more expensive to develop" North Sea oil fields isn't a subsidy when i'm sure we both agree that the government choosing to levy a lower rate of tax on something like a solar panel manufacturer, or other renewable energy industry companies whose products are less profitable (or "smaller/or more expensive to produce" if you prefer).

The argument about subsidies for renewables is that if the industry is profitable then it shouldn't need subsidising. A lower rate of tax is for a solar panel company is as much a subsidy as a lower rate of tax for a smaller/more expensive North Sea oil operation.
Except the only real difference between the two subsidies is that one of them is subsidising an emerging technology which will do good for jobs and humanity. The other is a subsidy to the most profitable industry humanity has ever had, and one that happens to be making our planet less habitable. And yet somehow we have people defending the latter and saying the former is a problem.

OK. Firstly, see my edit to my earlier post. PRT was set at 0% in Jan-2016 for all N.Sea oil and gas production.(I knew it had been changed, but had forgotten the details). PRT only applied to fields granted permission for development before March 1993. In 2002 Supplementary Charge was introduced, at one time 32%, then 20% and from Jan-2016. The rate of SC follows, approximately, oil prices, so seeks to capture for UK government a share of "supplementary" gains from rising oil prices. Jan-2016 oil prices fell below $30/bbl. They have now recovered, somewhat, and have been in the $60-$70 range for an extended period. (USA oil and gas fracking plays a major part in the evolution of global oil prices).

Renewable generators - emerging technologies - are subsidised by extra revenue, so they receive more revenue than they would receive if they had to compete directly with other electricity generation technology. The gov't has in the past also subsidised Carbon Capture and Storage research and development - in this case by contributing to the costs of researching viable means of developing CCS generation. (However, very little progress has been made, so far as I'm aware, with CCS at present).

If the renewable generator is profitable, including the renewable energy revenue support (which is paid as part of the electricity bill by the end consumer), then the renewable generator will pay Corporation Tax in the same way and at the same rates as any of the profitable oil and gas producters. (However, note than some O&G producers are not profitable. Several went bust when the global oil prices fell from mid-year 2014 to early 2016).

I started work in oil and gas sector in 1980. Everyone loved their cars back then. Everyone loved the plastics produced by the petchems sector of the O&G industry. Everyone loved the jobs created as N.Sea oil production grew and everyone loved the tax revenues the government received from all this activity. Almost everyone loves to travel today, whether it by car or airplane.

Yes, we've learnt that there is an environmental price to consuming oil and gas. The de-carbonisation of electricty generation is exciting and it will create new jobs and clean air is always better than "toxic" air. We need honesty and openness in the pursuit of these goals. Mis-steps were made in the promotion of diesel over petrol. Diesel is more fuel efficient, more miles per gallon, but also emits much greater nitrogen oxides (about 10 times higher than gasoline - http://www.transportenvironment.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) - and I understand the death rate is higher in the UK as a result of diesel pollution. In my view, the UK government has also made a mis-step in the way renewable generation is subsidised by additional charges on all consumers bills. This is a very regressive (stealth) tax on the poor. Honesty may have permitted a fairer way of funding these subsidies.

And, honesty may have encouraged OCI to choose their language a little more carefully. Who knows, it may achieve a better result.

[Paul Waine]

I have no respect for someone like Rowls who can be shown to be absolutely wrong and yet remain convinced he's right.

I'd recommend we are all a little slower to "call out" the other guy and adopt a generous attitude to the respect we grant. You never know when it is the person that is doing the "calling out" that has made the mistake - or maybe just misunderstood what the "other guy" has typed or mis-typed.

Social media is better when it is kept "social." I'm sure this is one of the lessons we can all take from many of the "seriously professional" trolling sites and the proporgators of "fake news."

And, I know I'm absolutely right on this.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'd recommend we are all a little slower to "call out" the other guy and adopt a generous attitude to the respect we grant. You never know when it is the person that is doing the "calling out" that has made the mistake - or maybe just misunderstood what the "other guy" has typed or mis-typed.

Social media is better when it is kept "social." I'm sure this is one of the lessons we can all take from many of the "seriously professional" trolling sites and the proporgators of "fake news."

And, I know I'm absolutely right on this.

It's been years Paul. He left a very bad impression in 2012 with his unthinking, uncritical ignorance and hasn't changed his mind since then on anything he's been demonstrably wrong about. And there's been a lot of opportunities.

[Paul Waine]

It's been years Paul. He left a very bad impression in 2012 with his unthinking, uncritical ignorance and hasn't changed his mind since then on anything he's been demonstrably wrong about. And there's been a lot of opportunities.

And, I can't remember what I posted last week, never mind what anyone else posted than - but, I think I've only been posting since the BHE was set up.

[Imploding Turtle]

And, I can't remember what I posted last week, never mind what anyone else posted than - but, I think I've only been posting since the BHE was set up.

It was a thread about the 2012 US election and i had linked to a piece by Rachel Maddow on Mitt Romney's mendacity. He dismissed it as being from some "fantastical liberal" blogger or something without knowing that she was, and still is, one of the most respected news anchors on American TV.

[Lowbankclaret]

Hi Lowbanks, are you sure? The wind turbine manufactures have been working on these things for many years. Are they really failing to get the best out of their designs?

Be great, of course, if there is scope for improvement in this area.

Being an engineer, there is always scope for improvement, we always hold some back because you know the management are going to ask for more next year. Need to keep some in the back sack for then.
You are always asked for 5% year on year improvement. So my next big idea gets drip fed at 5% per year.

For example, I have been told of a new material that can offer @ 25% lighter component that they tell me is stronger than the current.
This year I will work on implementing the material, being cautious add some thickness, get a 10% reduction in weight. Next year another 10% . Leaving some redesign work to achieve an incremental 10% per year for the next two.

If I give them 40% now how do I get my bonus for the following 3 years.

[Paul Waine]

Being an engineer, there is always scope for improvement, we always hold some back because you know the management are going to ask for more next year. Need to keep some in the back sack for then.
You are always asked for 5% year on year improvement. So my next big idea gets drip fed at 5% per year.

For example, I have been told of a new material that can offer @ 25% lighter component that they tell me is stronger than the current.
This year I will work on implementing the material, being cautious add some thickness, get a 10% reduction in weight. Next year another 10% . Leaving some redesign work to achieve an incremental 10% per year for the next two.

If I give them 40% now how do I get my bonus for the following 3 years.

Interesting situation. They way I'd tackle the bonus opportunity is to propose a scheme with a scale of upsides, how much for 5%, how much for 10% and so on. Plus I'd be looking for other employment opportunities. If I can be so good where I am now, how much will the next employer want to pay to get me on board with them.

It's not just Premier League footballers who can think about what they are worth.

And, I'd be thinking about the risk that my boss (or someone else) has also learned of the "25% lighter component" and so I won't get any share of the bonus when he asks me to use the new material....

[Lowbankclaret]

Proposing that type of scheme would not work where I work.

I have been offered several jobs in the last 5 years.

However I have a final salary pension, which in 7 years I can take £450,000 as a sum for draw down. If I leave now it’s worth £350,000. So any new job would have to be worth more and some.

My company thinks it’s wise to promote managers who are not technical to manage technical people and they move every 18-24 months. Most of em don’t know how to read a drawing, now my current one is technical and is extremely good, but he will move before I deliver my next 10%.

Need to optimise my next 7 years

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

Basically, all of that was a long way of saying "If we use gas as a backup/standby to wind and solar, when that backup is required it will cost £200/MWh" and if that backup is required more often than 5%, it will be less than this. Which is exactly what I said. This would not significantly impact the overall cost of electricity.

Saying 'wind turbines can generate around 30% of the time, roughly 8 hours every day' isn't correct. They have a 'load factor' of about 30% http://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-w ... ty-factors" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . This means they generate 30% of their theoretical maximum power over the course of a year. They actually produce some power nearly all the time, particularly off shore. When I check this, which I frequently do, even on the stillest UK days the 'Wind' dial always seems to make up a decent percentage of UK supply: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (I can't believe the one time I share this site, it isn't working correctly! It's still working, just not in real time.)

There is another objection in your post, though. and it might be the crux of the problem with using gas only as backup: the private sector won't touch it. Their projections require some kind of guarantee of sales before they'll pay the substantial up front cost of building gas plants. So you're right, gas plants will not be built if their market is restricted to the highly unpredictable 'backup' supply only. Unless the state builds and operates them, of course, being the one entity that can afford to shoulder the risks involved. But they won't - the 'market' is always the answer.

Hi iibyw, sorry, my point isn't the same as yours. What I'm saying - and I kept it as brief as I could - is that electricity markets are a lot more complex than you allow. There are a lot of times when the demand far exceeds the capacity of wind and sun to supply most of that demand. I'm saying that there isn't a 5% supply gap, that a great deal more gas fired power generation is needed. And, whatever plant is supplying the final 5% of power generation will still require £200/MWh (or what ever the cost is).

I agree, if you "ask" the private sector to provide gas fired plant that will only operate 5% of the plant's capacity then their response will be "no, thank you." And, in the Netherlands, some gas generation plants were "shut down" as soon as they had been commissioned, because the new Netherlands market rules would result in them losing money if they were operated.

Re turbine operating times: if a wind turbine has a generation capacity of 5 MWs (which is still a reasonable size for a single wind turbine - London Array commissioned a few years back has 3.6 MW turbines) then it will generate 5MWs whenever the wind is blowing in the designed operating range. It will achieve lower output if the wind is blowing slower and zero when the wind isn't blowing (and when the wind is blowing too strongly - at least until lowbank makes his improvements). My "8 hours" a day wasn't intended to suggest that the turbines can operate for 8 hours per day, but putting the 30% in context of 24 hour elec demand. (Yes, I know you can also work out 30% of 24 hours...).

I can't make "head nor tail" of the "UK offshore wind capacity factors" on the "energynumbers" link you posted. What are the number? Production during a set period? Production since 2009 to date (or later commissioning date)? I'd like to know how much wind production was delivered during peak hours - when the electricity is most needed. It's the gap between this wind generation performance and other supply sources that defines the requirement for other generation capacity.

The emergency maintenance of 140 (3.6MW) turbines at London Array and 108 (3.6MW) turbines at West of Duddon Sound has recently been disclosed by applications made to Marine Management Organisation. Data is available through links on energynumbers' site. These two wind farmers are among the largest capacity in the UK off-shore sector.

[Paul Waine]

Aurora Energy Research published a report on renewable energy in the UK, 20-March-2018.

https://www.auroraer.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Full access to the reports is available to subscribers only.

Their "Aurora in the news" section quotes following:

"Onshore wind and solar farms capable of generating more than three times as much power as the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant could be built without any subsidy from taxpayers in Britain by 2030. The plunging costs of the technologies, which were reliant on very high subsidies just a few years ago, could enable investors to build them without any government intervention by the early 2020s, said Aurora Energy Research."
The Times | 19 March 2018

"The UK is well on the way to a new era of subsidy-free renewable energy projects that will largely kill off prospects for new gas power stations, according to industry analysts. Mateusz Wronski, an analyst at Aurora, said: “The subsidy-free revolution is here and it’s big.”"
Guardian | 20 March 2018

"Aurora co-founder and CEO John Feddersen told the audience at its annual forum this morning that "in terms of subsidy-free renewables, we are at the tip of a very large iceberg". The latest evidence from the Netherlands, not to mention the bold ambitions of the UK's offshore wind industry and the changing strategies adopted by the world's largest energy firms, suggests he is almost certainly right."
Business Green | 20 March 2018

[Paul Waine]

And, here's how The Times reported Aurora's Report 21-March-2018:

Wind farms ‘on course to be free of subsidy’

Onshore wind and solar farms capable of generating more than three times as much power as the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant could be built without any subsidy from taxpayers in Britain by 2030, energy analysts have forecast.

The plunging costs of the technologies, which were reliant on very high subsidies just a few years ago, could enable investors to build them without any government intervention by the early 2020s, said Aurora Energy Research.

The government has ended subsidy schemes for new onshore wind and solar farms, slowing their development, amid concern about their cost to consumers. Aurora, an Oxford-based consultancy, predicts that the fall in costs has brought the industry to the “cusp of breakthrough in Britain”, whereby such projects could be commercially viable even without subsidies. It predicts that solar farms capable of generating up to 9 gigawatts and onshore wind farms with a maximum output of 5 gigawatts are likely to be built on this basis by 2030.

The prediction is likely to further increase pressure on nuclear developers to show they can be cost competitive. The 3.2-gigawatt Hinkley Point C plant is only viable thanks to a subsidy contract that commits consumers to pay its developers well above the market price for power for 35 years — potentially costing tens of billions of pounds. Renewables have only been made viable by similar commitments from government.

Under Aurora’s forecasts, the cost of renewable power generation will soon be competitive with the wholesale market price. Developers may therefore be able to negotiate agreements directly with buyers of wholesale energy, it suggested, helping to guarantee enough revenue to finance the projects.

The approach would be an advance on “subsidy free contracts”, advocated by the renewables industry, whereby the price would be guaranteed by the government but set at or below the forecast market price. Claire Perry, the energy minister, said that the government would review the capacity market this year.

[Paul Waine]

and, The Guardian's report:

Subsidy-free renewable energy projects set to soar in UK, analysts say

Falling cost of wind and solar will unlock £20bn of investment, Aurora Energy Research says

The UK is well on the way to a new era of subsidy-free renewable energy projects that will largely kill off prospects for new gas power stations, according to industry analysts.
The falling cost of wind and solar projects combined with advances in battery storage technology will unlock about £20bn of investment in the UK between now and 2030, Aurora Energy Research said. Onshore wind and solar will both be viable without subsidies by 2025 in the UK, it added.
The prediction comes as the Swedish energy firm Vattenfall announced that it had won a Dutch government tender to develop a windfarm which will become the world’s first without subsidies when built off the Netherlands coast in 2022.
“The [subsidy-free] future is within reach,” Magnus Hall, Vattenfall’s chief executive, told an industry audience in Oxford.
But the switch to a post-subsidy world would still require some financial aid during the transition period, Hall said, to ensure that risk was fairly shared between energy firms and governments.
Hall urged ministers to consider reversing the UK’s ban on subsidies for onshore windfarms, saying developers of these projects should be allowed to compete in auctions for subsidies.
His call was echoed by two of the UK’s big six energy firms, SSE and ScottishPower.
Alistair Phillips-Davies, chief executive of SSE, said onshore windfarms should be given a chance where communities support them. “I’d like to see onshore wind coming back in the UK,” he said.
Keith Anderson, chief corporate office at Scottish Power, told the Guardian: “Let’s use it, let’s deploy it. There are still areas absolutely where we could build onshore windfarms, areas where the local community are acceptive of windfarms.”
Wind power is expected to account for half of the 18GW of subsidy-free renewables to be built in the UK between now and 2030, according to a new Aurora Energy Research report.
The other half will be from solar power, which had largely stalled after subsidy cuts in 2015 but received a boost when the UK’s first subsidy-free solar farm opened last year.
Having so much green energy generation will squeeze out the opportunity for the likes of Germany’s RWE to build large gas power stations in the UK.
The government has already downgraded the amount of new gas power capacity it expects to be added by 2030 from 22GW to 7GW, but Aurora said that would shrink to just 1GW if subsidy-free renewables took off as anticipated.

Global energy giants forced to adapt to rise of renewables
Mateusz Wronski, an analyst at Aurora, said: “The subsidy-free revolution is here and it’s big.”
Prices in the capacity market, the government’s scheme for guaranteeing power supplies during winter, have repeatedly been too low to encourage new large gas power plants to be built.
The energy minister, Claire Perry, announced on Tuesday that the government would be launching a formal review of the capacity market later this year. One consideration will be whether to open up the scheme to renewable energy projects, a step that would further hammer gas.
Perry said the cold snap at the start of March, which saw gas demand jump 40% above normal levels, had shown the UK energy system was robust but there are “lessons to be learned”.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Support for Fracking now pulled by government.


Funny reading back through this thread, special marks to the poster who went to great lengths to removed his posts.

[bfcjg]

Teeny weeny hairline cracks in coving nothing that pollyfiller couldn't sort out.
We have an increasing population we need this gas to buy time until we can be truly renewable with nuclear power but it wont happen overnight.
I am working on a development where we have to put car charging points in no problem , but the juice required.....wow it has to be generated somehow.

[Imploding Turtle]

As always seems the case, there's an election so the Tories start adopting Labour policies.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Sure they’ll have a re-think after the election.

[tiger76]

Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn tweeted that the pause was an "election stunt" and that Labour would ban fracking permanently.

I don't often agree with JC but his cyncism is well-founded in this case,i'm sure it's purely a coincidence that this announcement is timed to coincide with the election campaign,i wonder what the Conservatives manifesto writer makes of all this.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said it may be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.

Note the government have left plenty of wriggle room to change this policy at any time.

[mdd2]

Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn tweeted that the pause was an "election stunt" and that Labour would ban fracking permanently.

I don't often agree with JC but his cyncism is well-founded in this case,i'm sure it's purely a coincidence that this announcement is timed to coincide with the election campaign,i wonder what the Conservatives manifesto writer makes of all this.

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom said it may be temporary - imposed "until and unless" extraction is proved safe.

Note the government have left plenty of wriggle room to change this policy at any time.

Bet Corbyn would reopen mines if he could

[Imploding Turtle]

Bet Corbyn would reopen mines if he could

He says, based on literally no facts.

How would reopening the mines with with Labour's acceptance of climate science and their green industrial revolution? Hint: It wouldn't. You're just bullshitting to attack Corbyn because it makes the lizard part of your little mind feel better. Like this post does for mine

[basil6345789]

Being an engineer, there is always scope for improvement, we always hold some back because you know the management are going to ask for more next year. Need to keep some in the back sack for then.
You are always asked for 5% year on year improvement. So my next big idea gets drip fed at 5% per year.

For example, I have been told of a new material that can offer @ 25% lighter component that they tell me is stronger than the current.
This year I will work on implementing the material, being cautious add some thickness, get a 10% reduction in weight. Next year another 10% . Leaving some redesign work to achieve an incremental 10% per year for the next two.

If I give them 40% now how do I get my bonus for the following 3 years.

You're being dishonest and your dishonesty is being driven by the bonus system. Not much trust and goodwill between employer and employee here.

[Lowbankclaret]

You're being dishonest and your dishonesty is being driven by the bonus system. Not much trust and goodwill between employer and employee here.

To be fair not sure we will get any bonus next year at all.

My work over the last two years has just produced savings of 130 million.

I think I can sleep well at night.

[bfcjg]

Time to bump this thread, it looks like fracking could well be back on the agenda. I started this thread 4 years ago perhaps I should log in as bfcnostradamus .
https://www.marketplace.org/2022/03/10/ ... ssian-gas/

[Boss Hogg]

Didn’t used to like turbines but think harvesting wind or the tide is the way forward. Should be using natural resources but try to minimise other problems. Fracking doesn’t fit this criteria. Nuclear causes a huge long term problem for generations and is not clean at all.

[Lancasterclaret]

Didn’t used to like turbines but think harvesting wind or the tide is the way forward. Should be using natural resources but try to minimise other problems. Fracking doesn’t fit this criteria. Nuclear causes a huge long term problem for generations and is not clean at all.

Only thing I disagree with is that Nuclear might be the best bet when we need a back up for renewables

But we should be prioritising renewables from right now

[claretandbluesky]

Need to leave some resources for future generations, they’re likely to need both gas and oil for manufacturing processes. Nuclear, wind, solar, tidal and hydro electric have to be the way to go but getting them in the right place needs to be the key.
The Middle East should be the centre of solar production. If only it was a stable environment.
Environmentalists take far too little interest in the politics of change. Ideologies and conflict stand in the way of many simple solutions.

[Quicknick]

I have never been against fracking.

[Spijed]

Fracking will end up with the NIMBY argument for many.

[Rowls]

I've never been against fracking and always found the opposition to it on "environmental" grounds to be absurd.

If you believe in "carbon footprints" and all that then your oppisition to fracking has led to the UK buying gas from abroad to replace the gas that we could have fracked ourselves. This means that the gas we import carries a much higher "carbon footprint" because it has had to be liquified for transportation and then sailed half way across the world for us to use.

[jos]

Fracking is madness, too many people have suffered already from mishaps and contaminated land and water.

Nuclear fusion may be the way forward.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-scientist ... y-12536956

[Stayingup]

Fracking is madness, too many people have suffered already from mishaps and contaminated land and water.

Nuclear fusion may be the way forward.

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-scientist ... y-12536956

Suffered from it? How? What mishaps? Contaminated land where? Its provided the USA with very affordable gas. What about these wind turbines killing birds?

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh, we are at the "wind turbines killing birds" stage of the debate with fracking are we?

Jesus, the idea is to use less fossil fuels, not more

[Stayingup]

Oh, we are at the "wind turbines killing birds" stage of the debate with fracking are we?

Jesus, the idea is to use less fossil fuels, not more

No. Here we are with sky high prices because we have had an idiotic energy plan. In fact we havent had a plan.
Until we can produce energy from renewables on tap at reasonable prices, which may never happen, we need fossil fuels.
And just mentioning turbines do you know how much CO2 is emitted in making these bird killers? Haha

[Stayingup]

I've never been against fracking and always found the opposition to it on "environmental" grounds to be absurd.

If you believe in "carbon footprints" and all that then your oppisition to fracking has led to the UK buying gas from abroad to replace the gas that we could have fracked ourselves. This means that the gas we import carries a much higher "carbon footprint" because it has had to be liquified for transportation and then sailed half way across the world for us to use.

And there is no benefit in tax or employment to UK in importing it.

There is an interesting report out of Liverpool University about the Tremors from fracking. Its equivalent to sitting in an office chair according to the report. As things stand until renewables can fulfill the countries energy requirements fossil fuels will likely be extracted from under us, as in the USA.

[Lancasterclaret]

No. Here we are with sky high prices because we have had an idiotic energy plan. In fact we havent had a plan.
Until we can produce energy from renewables on tap at reasonable prices, which may never happen, we need fossil fuels.
And just mentioning turbines do you know how much CO2 is emitted in making these bird killers? Haha

Agree we haven't a plan

Disagree that not spending the money on renewables rather than very unpopular fracking is the way forward

We are going to have to use fossil fuels for a while, no point pretending otherwise, but no need to wreck out countryside just because of some short term issues that we can fix

[Jakubclaret]

I've never been against fracking and always found the opposition to it on "environmental" grounds to be absurd.

If you believe in "carbon footprints" and all that then your oppisition to fracking has led to the UK buying gas from abroad to replace the gas that we could have fracked ourselves. This means that the gas we import carries a much higher "carbon footprint" because it has had to be liquified for transportation and then sailed half way across the world for us to use.

I agree & on that basis I think it’s quite reasonable & perfectly understandable to find out where you live & we can come along & do the fracking there I’m sure you won’t have a problem with that.

[Stayingup]

I agree & on that basis I think it’s quite reasonable & perfectly understandable to find out where you live & we can come along & do the fracking there I’m sure you won’t have a problem with that.

Lets all freeze to death eh? Tell you what if EXR start thier nonesense again Id start fracking in London and Brighton.

[Jakubclaret]

Lets all freeze to death eh? Tell you what if EXR start thier nonesense again Id start fracking in London and Brighton.

Freeze are you a man or a mouse, wear a extra jumper.

[Rowls]

I agree & on that basis I think it’s quite reasonable & perfectly understandable to find out where you live & we can come along & do the fracking there I’m sure you won’t have a problem with that.

I don't think anybody is suggesting anyone needs to abandon their house in order for us to obtain gas by fracking.

If, by some pure fluke, my house is sitting directly at the spot where a company want to drill (it isn't) I think it would be a good payday to exploit and I'd welcome the windfall enromously.

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't think anybody is suggesting anyone needs to abandon their house in order for us to obtain gas by fracking.

If, by some pure fluke, my house is sitting directly at the spot where a company want to drill (it isn't) I think it would be a good payday to exploit and I'd welcome the windfall enromously.

You daily reminder that Rowls doesn't live in England, and therefore can say such things 100% secure in the knowledge that they won't come true

Course, mineral rights are not owned by individual house owners as well, so the only people making money are the big companies

[Stayingup]

Agree we haven't a plan

Disagree that not spending the money on renewables rather than very unpopular fracking is the way forward

We are going to have to use fossil fuels for a while, no point pretending otherwise, but no need to wreck out countryside just because of some short term issues that we can fix

Thats funny. Wreck out the countryside or cover it with monstrosities. Actually I am pro banning fossil fuels but as I say when the time is right. And I do not like wind turbines. Something else that we dont make. Another omission in our practically non existent energy policy. Maybe Hydrogen could save is from these. I favour this and these RR reactors.

[Jakubclaret]

I don't think anybody is suggesting anyone needs to abandon their house in order for us to obtain gas by fracking.

If, by some pure fluke, my house is sitting directly at the spot where a company want to drill (it isn't) I think it would be a good payday to exploit and I'd welcome the windfall enromously.

That’s strange then why so many people are opposed to the fracking where the fracking was taking place if it’s a win win.

[Stayingup]

I don't think anybody is suggesting anyone needs to abandon their house in order for us to obtain gas by fracking.

If, by some pure fluke, my house is sitting directly at the spot where a company want to drill (it isn't) I think it would be a good payday to exploit and I'd welcome the windfall enromously.

Well a lot of landowners have become rich by allowing wind farms on there 'Estates'. A relative of our former PM comes to mind.

[Lancasterclaret]

Thats funny. Wreck out the countryside or cover it with monstrosities. Actually I am pro banning fossil fuels but as I say when the time is right. And I do not like wind turbines. Something else that we dont make. Another omission in our practically non existent energy policy. Maybe Hydrogen could save is from these. I favour this and these RR reactors.

There has been eight huge wind turbines on the Moor outside my house for years - no issue

We used to make them, and now we don't - that is something we can change

[Rowls]

You daily reminder that Rowls doesn't live in England, and therefore can say such things 100% secure in the knowledge that they won't come true

Course, mineral rights are not owned by individual house owners as well, so the only people making money are the big companies

I've not seen these "daily reminders" before.

But I do now live in England.

You're right about mineral rights and I'm right about houses not needing to be moved to get the fracking done.